LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Much less than the state pension as they'll be included in health, education, etcDorset_Boy said:
I wonder if the triple lock will be amended from 'highest of' to 'average of', and how much that might then save.super_davo said:
That confirms what I suspected in so far as working tax credit and housing benefit cost a ton. It's notable that unemployment benefits are so much less than working tax credits; just proves so much of the UK's fabled full employment are really non jobs, if they don't pay enough to live on if people doing them still need government help to live.rjsterry said:
No. Biggest item is benefits including state pension. Then Health then Education then Debt interest. Nobody is seriously suggesting cutting health or education and everything else is just tinkering so state pension is where you would start looking for big savings. State pension is ~1.5 times entire defence budget.rick_chasey said:
Vast majority is services isn’t it?Stevo_666 said:
You didn't answer my question.rick_chasey said:
So explain what you’d cut for the associated tax cuts you want.Stevo_666 said:
Why are you assuming that all tax collected is spent on services?rick_chasey said:For those arguing low tax - who is going to pay for state run services and if the answer is no one, which services would you cut?
Would you, say, take a 15 percentage points cut in your top rate tax in return for scrapping the NHS?
Also go back to my point a few pages back that Sweden's experience of eliminating IHT was that it increased their overall tax take. So if you want to increase tax revenues, what would you do?
These are classic market distortions, ostensibly to help low earners but in reality the ultimate beneficiaries are low paying employers and private landlords and homeowners.
If Labour increase the minimum wage and build more local authority houses, there is a ton of money to be saved.
Politically it will be difficult to cut the costs of the pension budget with the triple lock et al, but I'm sure there is room for some sort of means testing/ taper at the top end. I can't see the Tories ever doing that, hence bang goes any chance of them ever achieving the low tax / small state that so many talk about.
But bear in mind that (as far as I'm aware) public sector pensions also all increased by 10.1% this year too, and think how much they cost.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
Come on Stevo, did you not learn anything from your great leader Truss?Stevo_666 said:
I think the graph above answer your question. Not sure you would count the state pension as a service for starters?rick_chasey said:
Vast majority is services isn’t it?Stevo_666 said:
You didn't answer my question.rick_chasey said:
So explain what you’d cut for the associated tax cuts you want.Stevo_666 said:
Why are you assuming that all tax collected is spent on services?rick_chasey said:For those arguing low tax - who is going to pay for state run services and if the answer is no one, which services would you cut?
Would you, say, take a 15 percentage points cut in your top rate tax in return for scrapping the NHS?
Also go back to my point a few pages back that Sweden's experience of eliminating IHT was that it increased their overall tax take. So if you want to increase tax revenues, what would you do?
Anyhow, you should have another read of the Sweden article though, should make it clear for you that cutting taxes wisely can increase tax revenue. You are assuming that any cut reduces it, which appears to be wrong.
Even MMT believers think taxes should rise in this environment.
0 -
You obviously haven't bothered to read the link or my posts about how the Swedish strategy increased tax revenues.rick_chasey said:
Come on Stevo, did you not learn anything from your great leader Truss?Stevo_666 said:
I think the graph above answer your question. Not sure you would count the state pension as a service for starters?rick_chasey said:
Vast majority is services isn’t it?Stevo_666 said:
You didn't answer my question.rick_chasey said:
So explain what you’d cut for the associated tax cuts you want.Stevo_666 said:
Why are you assuming that all tax collected is spent on services?rick_chasey said:For those arguing low tax - who is going to pay for state run services and if the answer is no one, which services would you cut?
Would you, say, take a 15 percentage points cut in your top rate tax in return for scrapping the NHS?
Also go back to my point a few pages back that Sweden's experience of eliminating IHT was that it increased their overall tax take. So if you want to increase tax revenues, what would you do?
Anyhow, you should have another read of the Sweden article though, should make it clear for you that cutting taxes wisely can increase tax revenue. You are assuming that any cut reduces it, which appears to be wrong.
Even MMT believers think taxes should rise in this environment."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
😆Stevo_666 said:
A quote from someone who isn't even an MP. How relevant is that these days?skyblueamateur said:
It’s infinitely better then ‘f*ck business’Stevo_666 said:
They claim they do. Reeves has been expending a lot of energy trying to appear business friendly, but where do you think they going to go fishing for the money to do what they want? Probably the like of you and me.rjsterry said:
Given the previous PM is quoted as saying "f*** business", it seems the Conservative party already views me as the enemy. Which is why it's dying.Stevo_666 said:
You don't think they'll get worse if Labour get in. After all, as a business owner you will be the enemy.rjsterry said:
Well obviously. I've already been the brunt of tax rises so why would I think they'll change?Stevo_666 said:
Speak for yourself. It's very relevant for me.rjsterry said:
As a business owner, this is laughable.Stevo_666 said:
If we accepted that premise then another way of looking at it is to ask who is likely raise taxes the most.rjsterry said:Nobody is lowering taxes any time soon. They can't afford to.
Also relevant is who is most likely to bear the brunt of any tax rises.
I think we know the answers to these.
Right now the Labour party say they have have more positive development policies than the Conservatives. It may well not come to pass but it's worth a punt against a party actively opposing my line of work. That's how much of a hole they're in.
In any case, I live in a Con/LD marginal with a majority of just 650, so my options are pretty clear despite the LD being next to invisible.
Boris who? Never heard of 'im, mate.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Whilst I would scrap the triple lock I would also argue that there is already a 20/40/60/45% taper for higher earners.super_davo said:
That confirms what I suspected in so far as working tax credit and housing benefit cost a ton. It's notable that unemployment benefits are so much less than working tax credits; just proves so much of the UK's fabled full employment are really non jobs, if they don't pay enough to live on if people doing them still need government help to live.rjsterry said:
No. Biggest item is benefits including state pension. Then Health then Education then Debt interest. Nobody is seriously suggesting cutting health or education and everything else is just tinkering so state pension is where you would start looking for big savings. State pension is ~1.5 times entire defence budget.rick_chasey said:
Vast majority is services isn’t it?Stevo_666 said:
You didn't answer my question.rick_chasey said:
So explain what you’d cut for the associated tax cuts you want.Stevo_666 said:
Why are you assuming that all tax collected is spent on services?rick_chasey said:For those arguing low tax - who is going to pay for state run services and if the answer is no one, which services would you cut?
Would you, say, take a 15 percentage points cut in your top rate tax in return for scrapping the NHS?
Also go back to my point a few pages back that Sweden's experience of eliminating IHT was that it increased their overall tax take. So if you want to increase tax revenues, what would you do?
These are classic market distortions, ostensibly to help low earners but in reality the ultimate beneficiaries are low paying employers and private landlords and homeowners.
If Labour increase the minimum wage and build more local authority houses, there is a ton of money to be saved.
Politically it will be difficult to cut the costs of the pension budget with the triple lock et al, but I'm sure there is room for some sort of means testing/ taper at the top end. I can't see the Tories ever doing that, hence bang goes any chance of them ever achieving the low tax / small state that so many talk about.0 -
Max Hastings on Johnson, in the Times yesterday:He is perhaps the most selfish human being I have ever met, indifferent to the welfare of anyone save himself. It is striking that he has few, if any, personal friends. He demands loyalty, but is incapable of giving it to others. He has neither principles nor personal convictions, save about his own ambitions and desires. Far from being the genial Mr Nice Guy he seeks to project, Tony Soprano would find him a tad ruthless.
He is a stranger to truth, a lifelong liar about big things and small. Many Brexit supporters today seem willing to pardon him for signing a treaty with Brussels that it was always his intention to break. The world, however, is less forgiving: Britain’s reputation has suffered gravely for having chosen a prime minister whose word cannot be trusted.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5389e1cc-0890-11ee-997e-7710367054a0?shareToken=1bca14c9bd2fd5605448473038b3de180 -
FFS, and I thought I couldn't dislike her any more. She's just odious. I'm not sure what else Cooper can do, but Braverman seems to be stepping into Johnson's shoes for lying to the house and refusing to correct the record. It's clearly wilful.
0 -
-
If Sunak doesn't snap and tell Johnson to FRO, then he's toast. Johnson showing his true colours, and cares not one jot about the Tory Party's survival.
0 -
There is something preferable to a complete thicko always thinking he is top quality rather than being enough of a thicko to be taken in when you really should know better.rick_chasey said:My mother in law, genuinely, thinks BoJo is top quality.
0 -
rick_chasey said:
My mother in law, genuinely, thinks BoJo is top quality.
And I'm quite sure that there's absolutely no point in trying to use logic or persuasion to change her mind. You have to wonder if there is anything at all that would, in such cases. Really sad.0 -
Laser focussed on the country's priorities.briantrumpet said:If Sunak doesn't snap and tell Johnson to FRO, then he's toast. Johnson showing his true colours, and cares not one jot about the Tory Party's survival.
0 -
Michael Howard simply calls Johnson a liar. Guess that's not going to surprise too many people at this stage. But Sunak comes out of this looking very weak, given he's not taking the challenge on directly himself. He needs to do to Johnson what Starmer did to Corbyn and his clan.
0 -
'Lord' Michael Howard! FFS. Where's Jeremy Paxman v2 when you need him.
Lord! What a f-ed country this is.0 -
orraloon said:
'Lord' Michael Howard! FFS. Where's Jeremy Paxman v2 when you need him.
Lord! What a f-ed country this is.
Yeah, it's worrying when Howard appears to be the voice of reason. But that's what Johnson's done to us. Or one of the many things.0 -
The committee refused 9 of his suggested peerages. 9.0
-
Properly grim.
18 years.1 -
remind me the argument for why real wages should naturally continue to riserick_chasey said:0 -
Didn’t get that either. It’s probably good if they do at the lower end to equalise things but the idea that wages should grow faster than inflation over the long term is odd.surrey_commuter said:
remind me the argument for why real wages should naturally continue to riserick_chasey said:0 -
If productivity goes up, then some of that increase should go to wages, else we live in some sort of feudal system where the baron gets all the spoils and nothing left for the peasants.Pross said:
Didn’t get that either. It’s probably good if they do at the lower end to equalise things but the idea that wages should grow faster than inflation over the long term is odd.surrey_commuter said:
remind me the argument for why real wages should naturally continue to riserick_chasey said:
Problem in the UK is that productivity hasn't gone up, so it's not unreasonable that wages haven't gone up either. But that's a pretty damning indictment of government policy if nothing is getting better for anyone.0 -
I think people overestimate how much governments can affect productivity, at least in a positive direction.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You could probably argue that productivity is static as the distribution of that proportionately static wage pie has shifted upwards.super_davo said:
If productivity goes up, then some of that increase should go to wages, else we live in some sort of feudal system where the baron gets all the spoils and nothing left for the peasants.Pross said:
Didn’t get that either. It’s probably good if they do at the lower end to equalise things but the idea that wages should grow faster than inflation over the long term is odd.surrey_commuter said:
remind me the argument for why real wages should naturally continue to riserick_chasey said:
Problem in the UK is that productivity hasn't gone up, so it's not unreasonable that wages haven't gone up either. But that's a pretty damning indictment of government policy if nothing is getting better for anyone.
It’s well documented that board level pay has increased disproportionately so the bottom end has sucked up the pain of that redistribution.
The outcome being the lower wages staff who are worse off are less productive as they have no incentive to be so.
That’s exactly why there’s strikes etc. going on at the moment.0 -
Looks like Nadine doesn't want to give up her job after all.0
-
Up until the GFC in 2008, they largely had at circa 2% for some decades. Per the Excel file accessible via the link below, the annual rate of increase in real wages from 1975 to 2009 was 2.2%.Pross said:
Didn’t get that either.surrey_commuter said:
remind me the argument for why real wages should naturally continue to riserick_chasey said:
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20150908153815/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm:77-365867
I assume the logic is that if productivity increases by x% per year then wages can increase by the same in real terms.
Since the GFC, real wages haven't really grown overall (though they have been volatile from year-to-year). Whether this is due to the impacts of the GFC or a different balance between "capital" and "labour" is above my pay grade.
One thing of interest to me is whether productivity is declining / flatlining amongst established workers or whether average productivity is not increasing due to an increasing proportion over time of less productive folk being in the workforce. (Which may be due to an influx of unproductive folk or a lack of training and development to increase productivity.)0 -
I’d have thought that there is a productivity ceiling for most positions. There will be no room for increase once this has been hit.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Go Nad.Jezyboy said:Looks like Nadine doesn't want to give up her job after all.
1 -
Can you unresign after having a resignation accepted?0
-
Decades of consistent real wage growth pre-GFC isn't an abstract theory. It is supported by ONS data. It's hard to see how such growth could be supported long term without productivity gains. Obviously, there are all sorts of smoke and mirrors that can be applied over short periods to paper over unfavourable fundamentals.pblakeney said:I’d have thought that there is a productivity ceiling for most positions. There will be no room for increase once this has been hit.
Caveat - can one paper over anything with smoke and mirrors? Possible mixed metaphor failure!
0 -
Most importantly, can you unresign with immediate effect if you've already resigned with immediate effect but haven't actually resigned yet?Pross said:Can you unresign after having a resignation accepted?
At least my ex-MP, Mr Adams, knows what resigning actually means!0
